Would Ireland beat England on neutral territory at the RWC?

First topic message reminder :

This - to me - would be the ultimate test of strength for the Home Nations sides.

A resurgent England against a confident Ireland would be one hell of a contest.

I hope it happens.

Well said, Boyne. If any teams place as much faith in previous RWC performances as some fans here are doing, they'll come unstuck.

Mickado wrote:PS

first person on this thread to predict a resounding victory for England
Was Portnoy.

I never bloody did.
That is rubbish.[/quote]

Let me re-phrase. "The first person to resoundingly predict victory for England". What i meant was that everyone else was sitting on the fence and you were the first person to say you thought England would win, which is why i was asking your opinion.

Anyway, you'd think after so many hidings over the years England would have been bitter enough. Maybe this year was the straw that broke the camels back. Nobody beats England 4 times in a row etc.

Just out of interest has any fans of any other nations cited their WC pedigree as a reason for confidence in the coming WC?

It seems like a pretty lame attempt at straw clutching to me.

Only once in the professional era (2007) have England exceeded expectations in a WC so I'm not sure what this "different animal" nonsence is about?

Boyne you simply can't dismiss it because Ireland have none.

In the HC would you dismiss Toulouse,Leicester,Munster and Leinster as contenders for next season's crown? Previous tournament's form generally does count for something.

The usual suspects normally do well.

You better hope Ireland don't play like it is 2007! In 2007 England took an average team to a WC final.

Roddersm only France,England and the tri nations do well in the WC. I am sure the Scots have mentioned their quarter finals too.

You don't understand as you are Irish.

If Ulster were a car they moved from 2nd to 3rd gear last year (after spending 3/4 years in 2nd gear). Importantly they have the structure, talent, finances in place to move into 4th gear in a couple of years and after that who knows. I expect another year in 3rd gear this year as we consolidate.

I honestly believe to be at least Munster's equal in 2012-13 but still behind Leinster.

beshocked wrote:
Roddersm only France,England and the tri nations do well in the WC. I am sure the Scots have mentioned their quarter finals too.

You don't understand as you are Irish.

I'd have viewed it more that the top 4 ranked teams usually do well.

You probably don't understand because England are ranked 5th .

beshocked wrote:Boyne you simply can't dismiss it because Ireland have none.

In the HC would you dismiss Toulouse,Leicester,Munster and Leinster as contenders for next season's crown? Previous tournament's form generally does count for something.

The usual suspects normally do well.

You better hope Ireland don't play like it is 2007! In 2007 England took an average team to a WC final.

Roddersm only France,England and the tri nations do well in the WC. I am sure the Scots have mentioned their quarter finals too.

You don't understand as you are Irish.

So much BS there mate, but I'll do my best.

I wouldnt dismiss the teams you mention in the HC, as they are tems who perform year after year and are there or there abouts on an annual basis.

I also hope we do better than 2007! And as you have pointed out, England took an average (at best) team to the WC final. An anomoly.

Im pretty sure the Scots made it to a semi final, as did Wales (3rd I think), so God knows what point you are trying to make there.

England have a favourable draw this year and could do well, but I reckon you'll be beaten by the Argies.

The truth is, England are simply not as good at rugby as you think they are.

Consistant results over the last 10 years show that.....

Boyne wrote:

beshocked wrote:Boyne you simply can't dismiss it because Ireland have none.

In the HC would you dismiss Toulouse,Leicester,Munster and Leinster as contenders for next season's crown? Previous tournament's form generally does count for something.

The usual suspects normally do well.

You better hope Ireland don't play like it is 2007! In 2007 England took an average team to a WC final.

Roddersm only France,England and the tri nations do well in the WC. I am sure the Scots have mentioned their quarter finals too.

You don't understand as you are Irish.

So much BS there mate, but I'll do my best.

I wouldnt dismiss the teams you mention in the HC, as they are tems who perform year after year and are there or there abouts on an annual basis.

I also hope we do better than 2007! And as you have pointed out, England took an average (at best) team to the WC final. An anomoly.

Im pretty sure the Scots made it to a semi final, as did Wales (3rd I think), so God knows what point you are trying to make there.

England have a favourable draw this year and could do well, but I reckon you'll be beaten by the Argies.

The truth is, England are simply not as good at rugby as you think they are.

Consistant results over the last 10 years show that.....

Oh and I forgot- you probably dont understand that because you are English, n'est pas?

If Ireland are to capitalise on their current* rugby strength, then they simply have to prove themselves in the antipodes.

That is why they simply have to beat Australia. They are there for the taking - and with their current squad mix of youth and quality experience, then a reversal would be disastrous.

There isn't a better technically equipped NH side.

* I was going to say resurgent - but that implies a restoration to position of former strength,

HC pedigree is totally different anyway. For STARTERs its annual, then you take into account that each team plays at least 3 games at home etc.

There have only been 6 world cups, to put that into perspective after 6 years of the HC Leicester tigers reigned supreme, look how things have changed since then!

I think it's right to say England's WC form in 2007 counts for nought in this World Cup. Or at least that it doesn't count for much – this is a different team, but you can't discount the psychological factor.

But then surely the same goes for Ireland's victories over other England teams since 2003? It's not that important in deciding who will win if the current Irish and England teams face up at the WC.

I think it is a factor to be honest.

I think that it isn't relevant to other teams, but it is relevant to England. Portnoys wrote an article about history; it's a funny thing.

We've spoken about Ulster on this thread; for us, our history is an incredible winning record at Ravenhill throughout much of the 80s and 90s and beyond. A lot of scalps have been claimed there since the start of European competition as well. That doesn't matter to other teams, but it does for us. I'm sure Leicester and Clermont fully believe they can and will turn us over but our history means our players and fans believe 100% that we can beat anyone at Ravenhill.

Similarly England will take inspiration from their history in the World Cup. I still can envisage them losing to Argentina first up; that's a massive banana skin. But I expect them to be there or thereabouts again.

Eustace H Plimsoll wrote:I think it's right to say England's WC form in 2007 counts for nought in this World Cup. Or at least that it doesn't count for much – this is a different team, but you can't discount the psychological factor.

But then surely the same goes for Ireland's victories over other England teams since 2003? It's not that important in deciding who will win if the current Irish and England teams face up at the WC.

100% on ze money!

beshocked, teams / provinces are likely to have much the same personnel one season on. To use the Heinken Cup as an example for your World Cup argument doesn't work.

Eustice the only thing that matters is how the teams and players perform when they take to the field in each game. If a team has to look to 4 or 8 years in the past to give them confidence or comfort then they will be in trouble.

.......but the fact remains that Ireland dont do well at World Cups.

FACT.

roddersm congratulations! Ireland are 4th in the world!

Well done! You must be really proud!

Nope normally just the countries I mentioned.

Err boyne I just said England are as good as Ireland because of the rock paper scissors conundrum. England have won a world cup and reached 2 world cup finals if you didn't know. England have consistently reached WC quarter finals or higher.

I agree Ireland are consistently average. Only 1 6 nations title since it began. No success in world cups.

Why is it only the Irish that think we will lose to Argentina? Don't let your heart get in the way of your head.

beshocked wrote:Why is it only the Irish that think we will lose to Argentina?

Who has said that?

Portnoy wrote:* I was going to say resurgent - but that implies a restoration to position of former strength,

That's ok Pornoy we're comfortable with our current position so we don't need to look to any former one to cheer us up.

I said you may lose to Argentina; it's hardly beyond the bounds of possibility. If you beat them you will probably go on to win the group and make a semi-final, because I'd back you against France.

I'd say Argentina have a good chance of causing an upset.

red_stag wrote:

beshocked wrote:Why is it only the Irish that think we will lose to Argentina?

Who has said that?

I said that Stag, got a problem?

We will know a lot more about the Argies in August. Look at what Los Pampas 15 did in SA last year. 100% win record I think.

Plus they have massive bulk in Europe to add to the team.

If I were England, I would be looking no further than this game.

All I have heard from England fans is that they fully expect to walk the group.

I tip Argie to beat up England.

Nothing to do with hearts, mate.

beshocked wrote:roddersm congratulations! Ireland are 4th in the world!

Well done! You must be really proud!

Thank you Beshocked. I am actually as there are some very good teams below us, most notably France.

beshocked wrote:roddersm congratulations! Ireland are 4th in the world!

Well done! You must be really proud!

Nope normally just the countries I mentioned.

Err boyne I just said England are as good as Ireland because of the rock paper scissors conundrum. England have won a world cup and reached 2 world cup finals if you didn't know. England have consistently reached WC quarter finals or higher.

I agree Ireland are consistently average. Only 1 6 nations title since it began. No success in world cups.

Why is it only the Irish that think we will lose to Argentina? Don't let your heart get in the way of your head.

If the Argentinian team that showed up at the last world cup turn up, England will have their work cut out for them.

If Ireland were playing well at the last world cup, they would still have lost to Argentina, who actually just ran out of steam at the end (their pool was tough with Ireland & France in it who had both done well in the 6Ns that year).

roddersm wrote:

Portnoy wrote:* I was going to say resurgent - but that implies a restoration to position of former strength,

That's ok Pornoy we're comfortable with our current position so we don't need to look to any former one to cheer us up.

I'm sure you are rodders, But it's the other bit of that post which is pertinent.

Ask yourself this question:

Who do you fear more - England or Australia?

Then analyse results over the past twelve months and ask yourself the same question.

And then rationalise it.

Portnoy wrote:

roddersm wrote:

Portnoy wrote:* I was going to say resurgent - but that implies a restoration to position of former strength,

That's ok Pornoy we're comfortable with our current position so we don't need to look to any former one to cheer us up.

I'm sure you are rodders, But it's the other bit of that post which is pertinent.

Ask yourself this question:

Who do you fear more - England or Australia?

Then analyse results over the past twelve months and ask yourself the same question.

And then rationalise it.

I would say we "fear" niether. But my opinion is that Australia have a better rugby team than England.

Be proud of 4th by all means. It just shows Irish expectations and English expectations. Anything below 3rd is poor for us.

Big if sin e. The Scots dealt with the Argentinians easily.

roddersm would you say France are better than you because they regularly beat you?

Boyne I certainly don't think we will walk it but I would expect us to win our pool going by wc pedigrees,being the current 6 nations champions, head to heads vs the sides in our pool etc.

Argentina and Scotland will be tricky but we should prevail if we don't let them drag it into an arm wrestle.

Portnoys, I really think most people are going to go for Australia there.

Australia having been better than England in that time period, with wins over South Africa and New Zealand, a higher world ranking and Ireland have a far inferior record against them as opposed to our quite good record against England.

Also, Australia have the ability to score tries from anywhere on the park and several really top class attacking players on top of their game. England are also a very dangerous side that could get the better of us with a good performance but really... Australia are amongst the serious gold standard contenders to win this thing in a way that (if we are honest) Ireland and England just are not.

beshocked wrote:
Big if sin e. The Scots dealt with the Argentinians easily.

Argentina will have a proper preseason and train together for more than a week for a change. They nearly always do well at world cups as well.

Portnoy wrote:
Who do you fear more - England or Australia?

I don't fear either but certainly Australia are the much more dangerous of the two. On a neutral venue I believe we have a good chance of beating either but I would see us being underdogs against Australia but marginal favourites against England.

beshocked wrote:Be proud of 4th by all means. It just shows Irish expectations and English expectations. Anything below 3rd is poor for us.

So where is this confidence coming from then, if you are poor by your own high standards

I'm gonna agree with Beshocked actually.

How can people claim that Englands World Cup pedigree doesn't really count for all that much but then claim that Argentina could beat them as they nearly always do well at World Cups.

red_stag wrote:I'm gonna agree with Beshocked actually.

How can people claim that Englands World Cup pedigree doesn't really count for all that much but then claim that Argentina could beat them as they nearly always do well at World Cups.

It's an hypocrisy. I'm suggesting Argentina could beat them because, well... Argentina could beat them and there isn't all that much between the teams on paper. Both teams should be very confident of their chances of winning that pool and I expect a close game that could go either way.

beshocked wrote:

roddersm would you say France are better than you because they regularly beat you?

No I'd say we are slightly better right now because we are ranked higher and finished the 6N stronger. They narrowly beat us in the 6N but in my mind we should have won.

I still believe France have by far the strongest squad of players in the NH though and they have been the most dominant team in the NH over the past decade.

To be ranked above them is a fine achievement given our respective resources.

The 6N count for nothing now.

Be warned I'm in a bad mood today!

At the same time, it's equally hypocritical for beshocked to say England will beat Argentina well because of their pedigree at World Cups whilst ignoring the traditionally strong challenge the Pumas present themselves in the tournament as it is for Irish fans to disregard Englands record while talking about Argentina.

Surely the common sense view is that this will be a close game that could go either way. Tight call, but my money is on England by less than five points.

Notch wrote:

beshocked wrote:Be proud of 4th by all means. It just shows Irish expectations and English expectations. Anything below 3rd is poor for us.

So where is this confidence coming from then, if you are poor by your own high standards

Well played!

beshocked wrote:
Anything below 3rd is poor for us.

Well considering you've rarely been above 6th in the past decade you must be pretty used to being poor then.

Notch wrote:Portnoys, I really think most people are going to go for Australia there.

Australia having been better than England in that time period, with wins over South Africa and New Zealand, a higher world ranking and Ireland have a far inferior record against them as opposed to our quite good record against England.

Also, Australia have the ability to score tries from anywhere on the park and several really top class attacking players on top of their game. England are also a very dangerous side that could get the better of us with a good performance but really... Australia are amongst the serious gold standard contenders to win this thing in a way that (if we are honest) Ireland and England just are not.

The point being that Ireland have to get the SH monkey off their backs.

England and Ireland are very similarly matched as the best two sides in Europe (until Lievremont goes).

No amount of injury excuses will explain the paucity of Ireland's performances down-under last year.

You also reckon that Oz are a better side than England. I don't. And I don't believe that they're better than Ireland either.

But that's a mindset... (like you have for your HEC/6Ns teams.

Mindeset is important. To me the idea of being satisfied at being ranked 4th in the world is laughable. My expectations short term for Ireland would be:

- Win the summer test aggregate series against France
- Beat either Australia or South Africa in World Cup

Those would be MASSIVE achievements and big step in right direction.

I don't know about that, we sent a shadow team. We got a beating by the All Blacks and played well enough against the Wallabies.

Don't get me wrong Portnoys. We can beat Australia, we have a great chance of beating them or South Africa. But I'm not going to talk us up like in 2007. We're flying in under the radar here, no problems with that.

I agree with Stag. Those are good goals, achievable, and what we should be aiming at.

Sorry Beshocked where do you get that from. I'd say for the last 8+ years anything above 6th has been good for us.



It's throw away statements like yours that give people the impression that all England fans are arrogant!

Carpe Diem wrote:Sorry Beshocked where do you get that from. I'd say for the last 8+ years anything above 6th has been good for us.



It's throw away statements like yours that give people the impression that all England fans are arrogant!

Like I said earlier in the thread; 'its not boasting if it's true'. Replace England with a TriNations side and the statement would be fair and realistic.

Since 2007, I don't think England have been in that top three which is why I thought it was a strange comment.

red_stag wrote: To me the idea of being satisfied at being ranked 4th in the world is laughable

I agree but I think it is a fair reflection and if anything it flatters us a tad because France have been pretty dominant over us in recent years.

I want to see us aim for higher but to do this we have to improve our performances and consistancy on the pitch. Right now the teams above us are simply better and to go higher we need to raise our level a few notches.

It is fair reflection of where we are = Yes
It flatters us a little = Yes

But its not worth being content over

red_stag wrote:It is fair reflection of where we are = Yes
It flatters us a little = Yes

But its not worth being content over

Agreed but it's better than 5th

Not as good as third though! The nature of sports is; you shouldn't be content unless you are Number 1. Applies to every side that really.

Then there is realism because only one side can be at any one time...

Are Ireland really flying under the radar? People seem to think we are capable of causing upsets down there.

Thomond I'd say no. To me we are an extremely talked up team and it may have reached the stage where other fans consider us to have gotten too big for our boots.

I still back us to achieve the goals I set out.

Notch wrote:Not as good as third though! The nature of sports is; you shouldn't be content unless you are Number 1.

Very true but when one is setting goals for oneself then they should be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timeable.

We aren't going to jump from 4th to 1st overnight. Rome wasn't built in a day Notch .

Stag,that's what I think. Maybe it's because there is an extremely large Irish contingent on here but we are getting talked up on these boards.